480 Transactions. 



Howe Island is mentioned only under the genus Flammulina (p. 671), but 

 I have seen no species of Flammulina from that island or Norfolk Island, 

 also named. 



Therasia ? antipoda (Hombron and Jacquinot, 1841). [P. 655.] 



Suter accepts the above name as of these authors (1854) in preference 

 to Helix aucklandica Le Guillou, Rev. Zool., v, 1842, 140, with the remark, 

 " I accept H. & J.'s. name because they figured the species." This is 

 not a valid reason, and we should, on the score of priority, have had to 

 accept Le Grflllou's name had I not observed that Hombron and Jacquinot 

 had published a preliminary description, which appeared before Le Guillou's 

 name. Consequently the above name can be preserved, the earliest re- 

 ference reading, " : H(elyx) antipoda Hombron and Jacquinot, Ann. Sci. 

 Nat., 2nd ser., vol. xvi, p. 64, 1841 : Auckland Islands." When the names, 

 accredited to Hombron and Jacquinot, were published in 1854 the recorder 

 was Rousseau, but in the above-noted paper many species were published 

 by Hombron and Jacquinot themselves. This paper seems to have been 

 overlooked. 



Flammulina zebra (Le Guillou, 1842). [P. 680.] 



Vitrina zebra Le Guillou, Rev. Zool., v, 1842, 136, is placed in the 

 synonymy of Helix phlogophora Pfeiffer, 1850, with the remark, " The 

 specific name zebra has, no doubt, priority ; but, as no figure of the shell 

 was given, I select Pfeiffer's phlogophora. as being the next in chronological 

 order, and which was figured by Reeve. Moreover, I have not seen Le 

 Guillou's species from the Auckland Islands, which is narrowly umbilicated, 

 and may be distinct from F. phlogophora." Only two courses are open — 

 the usage of Le Guillou's name zebra, or its admission into the synonymy 

 of phlogophora Pfeiffer with a ?. Suter suggests they are different species. 

 Search at the Auckland Islands is really necessary to determine such a 

 question, and that is not so easy a matter as to write that it should be done. 



Genus Endodonta (Albers, 1850). [P. 684.] 



I have proposed the rejection of this generic name from the Neozelanic 

 fauna, and this course will sooner or later be adopted, as the worker re- 

 sponsible for its introduction into that fauna has regretted his action, and 

 latterly repudiated it. 



Suter has classed thirty-seven species, four subspecies, five varieties, 

 and seven formae under this genus-name. Five subgenera are recognized, 

 and it would have been easy simply to write that these should be recog- 

 nized as genera ; but unfortunately the first two subgenera used by Suter 

 cannot be differentiated by the descriptions he has given, which are copied 

 from Pilsbry's " Guide to the Helices " (Man. Conch., 2nd ser., vol. ix, 

 1893). In my paper quoted above (the only one I have yet written dealing 

 with Australasian land molluscs) I suggest their identity. I there stated, 

 however, that later many genera might be recognized when the animals 

 were carefully studied in conjunction with their shells. In the meanwhile 

 I would suppress Thaumatodon and simply generically use Ptychodon. The 

 recognition of Phenacharopa as a distinct genus cannot be denied whilst 

 Aeschrodomus claims generic rank. Charopa, however, covers many generic 

 types, and it is pleasing to read (p. 700) Suter 's memo, " In my opinion, 

 only very few of the Tasmanian and Australian species assigned to Charopa 



